linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 7/7] perf arm-spe: Don't hard code config attribute

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20251202122835.GY724103@e132581.arm.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2025 12:28:35 +0000
From: Leo Yan <leo.yan@....com>
To: James Clark <james.clark@...aro.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
	Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
	Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
	Mike Leach <mike.leach@...aro.org>,
	John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
	Leo Yan <leo.yan@...ux.dev>, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, coresight@...ts.linaro.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] perf arm-spe: Don't hard code config attribute

On Mon, Dec 01, 2025 at 04:41:10PM +0000, Coresight ML wrote:
> Use the config attribute that's published by the driver instead of
> hard coding "attr.config".
> 
> Signed-off-by: James Clark <james.clark@...aro.org>
> ---
>  tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/arm-spe.c | 15 ++++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/arm-spe.c b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/arm-spe.c
> index d5ec1408d0ae..6c3dc97fde30 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/arm-spe.c
> +++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/arm-spe.c
> @@ -256,7 +256,7 @@ static __u64 arm_spe_pmu__sample_period(const struct perf_pmu *arm_spe_pmu)
>  
>  static void arm_spe_setup_evsel(struct evsel *evsel, struct perf_cpu_map *cpus)
>  {
> -	u64 bit;
> +	u64 pa_enable_bit;
>  
>  	evsel->core.attr.freq = 0;
>  	evsel->core.attr.sample_period = arm_spe_pmu__sample_period(evsel->pmu);
> @@ -288,9 +288,10 @@ static void arm_spe_setup_evsel(struct evsel *evsel, struct perf_cpu_map *cpus)
>  	 * inform that the resulting output's SPE samples contain physical addresses
>  	 * where applicable.
>  	 */
> -	bit = perf_pmu__format_bits(evsel->pmu, "pa_enable");
> -	if (evsel->core.attr.config & bit)
> -		evsel__set_sample_bit(evsel, PHYS_ADDR);
> +
> +	if (!evsel__get_config_val(evsel->pmu, evsel, "pa_enable", &pa_enable_bit))
> +		if (pa_enable_bit)
> +			evsel__set_sample_bit(evsel, PHYS_ADDR);

Hmm... I am a bit concerned for the evsel__get_config_val() usage
throughout the series.

evsel__get_config_val() returns a whole config value rather than the
bit field specified by the format name.  If other bits (but not the
"pa_enable" bit) are set in the same config set, would it wrongly set
the PHYS_ADDR sample bit?

Seems to me, for reading specific format, perf_pmu__format_bits() is
more suitable than evsel__get_config_val().

Thanks,
Leo